EFFECT OF CEMENT, LIME, AND BIORESIN STABILIZERS ON

COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCK PERFORMANCE

Kenneth Maka, Oke Maracleb, and Colin MacDougallc*
a
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada;
[email protected]
b
Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada;
[email protected]
c*
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada;
[email protected]

*Corresponding author

Keywords: Compressed earth blocks, Portland cement, bioresins, freeze, moisture absorption.

Abstract: Earth construction has been traditionally used in warm, arid climates; however, in recent
years, there has been growing interest in its application in cold climates, like Canada. Stabilized
compressed earth blocks (CEBs) have been used in a number of residential applications, but the
long-term performance and moisture susceptibility of CEBs remain a concern. In this paper, a series
of new stabilizers, including Permazyme and bio-resins, have been tested and compared to
conventional stabilizers for their compressive performance. To be able to determine the impact of
moisture on durability, moisture absorption rates were measured. Fully saturated CEBs with these
stabilizers then were subjected to -10 °C temperatures until fully frozen. Their compressive
strengths were compared to dry and fully saturated CEBs tested at room temperature. Notably,
CEBs containing 5% bio-resin demonstrated a 61% to 109% increase in dry compressive strength
compared to 5% cement blocks, whereas Permazyme showed no significant increase in dry capacity
compared to unstabilized blocks.
Introduction

Earth-based construction is relatively new in Canada. The builders involved in this niche market
tend to be small, and the projects are usually custom-built homes. These builders encounter
skepticism from building officials in terms of the durability of earth-based construction. Thus, they
usually take a conservative approach and use high levels of stabilizers like Portland cement.
However, they recognize that from an environmental perspective, Portland cement is not optimal.
This paper describes testing conducted at Queen’s University in collaboration with a small
local builder. This builder was interested in finding alternatives to Portland cement for a stabilizer
for the compressed earth blocks (CEBs) he manufactures. He was also interested in obtaining
objective information on the moisture resistance of the CEBs and the strength in sub-zero
temperatures. Therefore, an investigation on the performance of compressed earth blocks, separated
into two phases, was conducted. Phase 1 focuses on the potential application of new stabilizers for
use in compressed earth blocks. The study consisted of compressive testing of a limited number of
lab-manufactured blocks. Phase 2 focuses on the impact of moisture on compressed earth blocks.
The study consisted of moisture absorption tests and preliminary freeze tests.

Experimental program

This section details the test specimens and parameters; materials; fabrication of specimens; and test
setup and instrumentation.

Test specimens and parameters: Portland cement is the most common stabilizer for CEBs. In
Phase 1, five alternative stabilizers were investigated to quantify their impact on compressive
strength. In Phase 2, CEBs were tested using three distinct approaches to quantify water absorption
and water-related performance. The first set of tests (2R) investigated the ability of a water repellent
applied to the CEB to resist wind driven rain. RILEM Test Method II.4 [1] was used to simulate
rain on the surface of the CEBs. The second set of tests (2A) investigated the water absorption rate
of CEBs based on ASTM C140 [2]. The final set of tests (2F) investigated the strength of fully
saturated CEBs that are subsequently subjected to sub-zero temperatures typical of Canadian
winters.

Three repetitions were done for each specimen type unless otherwise stated. Individual block types
and properties are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Materials: Compressed earth blocks were manufactured using the following materials:

Soil: Site soil from Coburg, Ontario, Canada was used for the compressed earth blocks. Tests by a
commercial testing lab [3], including x-ray diffraction and x-ray fluorescence analysis, indicate that
the soil contains 23.3% by mass of clay-size material. X-ray diffraction indicated that the majority
of the clay-sized material was calcite.
Cement: Type I Portland cement is a commonly used stabilizer for CEBs.
Lime: Hydrated dolomite lime is also commonly used to stabilize CEBs [4].
Metal Oxide: Metal oxide is used to modify the colour of CEBs.

Permazyme: A natural enzyme mixture, which is commonly used in the process of oil stabilization,
was used as a CEB stabilizer [5].
 Table 1: CEB Types

Stabilizer
Metal Nut Water
Specimen Lime Epoxy Repellent
Cement Oxide Epoxy
Type [% of Bioresin [% of [% of Permazyme Concentration
[% of soil [% of [% of
soil soil weight] soil [g/yd3] [%]
weight] soil soil
weight] weight]
weight] weight]
1C-1 5
1C-2 5
1C-3 5.15
1C-4 6.73
1C-5 7
1C-6 1
2R-1 5 0
2R-2 5 5
2R-3 5 6.7
2R-4 5 10
2R-5 5 25
2A-1 5
2A-2 7.5
2A-3 10
2A-4 5 2.5
2F-1 5
2F-2 7.5

Bioresin: A bioresin, comprised of a commercial available furfuryl alcohol (C5H6O2) was used as a
CEB stabilizer. The bioresin was derived from renewable resources, such as sugarcane and
corncobs. It was hardened with a commercially available catalyst at a ratio of 3% catalyst-by-
weight. The catalyst consisted of phthaloyl chloride (C8H4O4Cl2) and dimethyl phthalate
(C10H10O4).

Epoxy: A commercial epoxy resin was used. The reported post-cured (curing at 60°C for 72 hrs )
tensile strength and modulus were 72.4 MPa and 3.18 GPa, respectively. It exhibits a maximum
elongation of 5% [6].

Nut Epoxy: A commercial epoxy resin was used in conjunction with an alkylated phenolic
polyamine as its hardener. The hardener was derived from cashew nut shell oil and used at a weight
ratio of 100 parts resin to 40 parts hardener.

Water Sealant: A commercially available blend of silanes and oligomeric alkoxysiloxanes, which is
commonly used as a penetrating water repellent for dense or porous masonry surfaces. The mixture
was provided in a concentrated form and diluted to specified concentrations [7].
 Table 2: CEB Properties

Dimensions
Density
Specimen Phase Test Type Length Width Height [kg/m3]
[mm] [mm] [mm]
1C-1 31.4 2176.9
1C-2 33.0 2207.7
1C-3 31.5 2243.5
1 Compression 50.0 50.0
1C-4 30.6 2244.8
1C-5 30.4 2214.0
1C-6 31.7 2182.0
2R-1
2R-2
2R-3 RILEM 177.8 355.7 93.8 2033.4
2R-4
2R-5
2A-1 2 177.9 355.7 93.1 2094.8
2A-2 177.4 355.7 94.2 2122.9
ASTM
2A-3 177.2 355.8 93.0 2142.0
2A-4 177.8 355.8 93.9 2079.3
2F-1 177.8 355.6 279.6 2094.8
Freeze
2F-2 177.8 355.6 273.0 2122.9

Fabrication of specimens: Specimen fabrication method varied based on the test phase, as
described below:

Phase 1: CEBs were manufactured in the lab. Site soil was delivered and used as the primary
ingredient with additives, as outlined in Table 1.
Due to the preliminary nature of this phase, 50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm cube samples were
prepared. Site soil, additives and water were manually mixed and placed in a steel mould. A steel
bearing pad was placed between the soil and the loading head of a Lab Integration universal testing
machine. The surface was loaded at a rate of 6 mm/min up to a pressure of 10 MPa to replicate the
loading pressure of typical site-manufactured CEBs. Specimens were demoulded immediately and
left uncovered to cure for a minimum of 30 days prior to testing. The final height of each specimen
is indicated in Table 2.

Phase 2: CEBs were manufactured by an experienced builder in Cobourg, Ontario, Canada. Site
soil was used as the primary ingredient with additives, as outlined in Table 1.
An AECT 3500 Compressed Earth Block Machine was used to manufacture CEBs of
approximate width 356 mm and length 178 mm. The final height of each specimen is indicated in
Table 2. Soil and additives were combined in a mixer, and then water was added until the desired
consistency. An average compressive stress of 10.7 MPa was applied by the machine to fabricate
the blocks. All blocks were cured for a minimum of 30 days prior to transportation to the lab.
Specific specimens were treated with a water sealant. The water sealant concentrate was
diluted with water as per the ratio defined in Table 1. As per manufacturer’s instructions, the
solution was applied uniformly with a roller and the surface was maintained wet for 3 minutes.
Excess was wiped off. Specimens were allowed to dry for a minimum of 10 days prior to testing.
Test setup and instrumentation: Phase 1: Compressive tests of specimens were performed on a
universal testing machine. Dimensions and mass of every block were measured and recorded prior
to conditioning as well as before testing. CEBs were loaded between 0.05 MPa/s and 0.20 MPa/s
using spherically-seated steel plates, such that failure would be induced within 1-2 minutes from
50% ultimate load as per ASTM C1314 [8]. Sheets of 3 mm thick plywood were used to cap the
specimens. Maximum load and original cross-sectional area were used to determine the strength of
each block.
Phase 2: Water absorption was tested utilizing two different standards. RILEM Test Method
II.4 [1] defines water absorption based on an uptake tube test method. A short RILEM tube was
affixed to the side of the CEB with putty. Gradations were present on the side of the tube, with each
gradation representing a specific head pressure and in effect, an equivalent wind-driven rain.
Typically, water is added to a specified gradation to determine the water absorption relevant to the
specified conditions. For this series of tests, water was added to reach the highest graded line.
Measurements of the gradation level were made at specified periods. The RILEM test was
performed on all sides of the specimen.
ASTM approaches water absorption and its impact two different ways. Firstly, ASTM D559
[9] is targeted towards earthen materials and assumes water absorption to occur via capillary action
on the bottom of the specimen. Secondly, ASTM C140 [2] is targeted towards masonry units and
determines water absorption based on submersion. It was observed that over several days of
exposure, which is normal in practice, both methods yield the same saturation level with the latter
being faster [10]. The second approach was adopted, whereby specimens were fully submerged in
water. There was a minimum of 25 mm of water from the CEB surface to the surface of the water.
Specimens were removed, lightly wiped to remove surface puddles and weighed at specified
intervals.
Freeze testing of specimens consisted of compressive testing of frozen, fully saturated
CEBs. Firstly, CEBs were submerged for 24 hours to reach a maximum level of saturation, as
determined from the water absorption tests. Secondly, CEBs were exposed to exterior temperatures
of at least below -10°C for a 24 hour period. Additional CEBs were implanted with thermocouples
and exposed to the same conditions to ensure the internal temperature was below 0°C. Lastly,
compressive testing of the frozen CEBs was performed using a Forney testing machine. Internal and
external temperature measurements were taken to ensure that the CEB was fully frozen upon
testing.
Dimensions and mass of every block were measured and recorded prior to conditioning as
well as before testing. CEBs were loaded between 0.05 MPa/s and 0.20 MPa/s using spherically-
seated steel plates, such that failure would be induced within 1-2 minutes from 50% ultimate load as
per ASTM C1314 [8]. Sheets of 3 mm thick plywood were used to cap the specimens. Maximum
load and original cross-sectional area were used to determine the strength of each block.

Experimental results and discussion

This section presents the results of the experimental program. This includes the effect of
additives on compressive strength, effect of a water sealant on absorption rate, effect of common
additives on absorption rate, and effect of moisture on mechanical performance when frozen.
Due to the variation of aspect ratios amongst tests, a correction factor was implemented to
provide an equivalent unconfined strength. Heathcote and Jankulovski’s correction factor [11] was
selected, as per suggestion by Mak et al. [12].

Effect of additives on compressive strength: Six CEB types were tested to determine the impact
of additives. Results are shown in Table 3. CEB 1C-1, which contains 5% cement, is the most
common CEB mix for construction. As such, it represents the baseline at 3.85±0.15 MPa. This
baseline is representative of this manufacturing method with the current materials.
 Table 3: Phase 1 Compressive Testing Results

Results Heathcote and Jankulovski Correction

Aspect
Specimen Repetitions Strength Std. Correction Strength
Std.
Dev. ratio Dev.
[MPa] Factor [MPa]
[MPa] [h/t] [MPa]
1C-1 3 10.60 0.41 0.63 0.36 3.85 0.15
1C-2 3 3.95 0.72 0.66 0.38 1.50 0.27
1C-3 3 17.11 1.44 0.63 0.37 6.25 0.53
1C-4 3 34.57 2.62 0.61 0.36 12.32 0.93
1C-5 3 22.18 2.38 0.61 0.35 7.84 0.84
1C-6 3 5.01 0.46 0.63 0.37 1.84 0.17

CEB 1C-2, which used metal oxide as the stabilizer, had a compressive strength of less than
50% that of CEB 1C-1. Metal oxide is currently being added to the CEBs for aesthetics, and clearly
cannot be used as a direct replacement for cement. A similar capacity was observed in 1C-6, which
used only permazyme as a stabilizer. Permazyme is primarily intended to improve erosion
resistance. Again, the results indicate it cannot be used as a direct replacement for cement to obtain
a target compressive strength.

The use of resin as a stabilizer for CEBs is not conventional, however the results are
promising in terms of their impact on compressive strength. A drastic increase in capacity was
observed when compared to CEB 1C-1. The bioresin-stabilized CEB, 1C-3, showed an increase of
52%, whereas the commercial epoxy-stabilized CEB, 1C-4 resulted in an increase of 220%. CEB
1C-5, which contains the nut epoxy, yielded an increase of 104%. Higher variability compared to
the other specimens was observed with the use of resin systems. This may be attributed to
dispersion of small quantities of resins.

Despite the promising results, the builder involved with the project was concerned with the
cost and environmental impact of resins. Therefore, Phase 2 focused on CEBs with more
conventional stabilizers.

Effect of a water sealant on absorption rate: CEBs were surfaced treated with four different
concentrations of a water repellent mixture. Untreated CEBs, 2R-1, were used as a baseline. The
effect of the treatment is shown for both the 177.8 mm by 93.8 mm side (Figure 1(a)) and the 177.8
mm by 355.7 mm bottom face (Figure 1(b)) of the CEB, where the highest graded line represents
the initial starting point. No movement from the “highest graded line” represents a negligible
amount of water absorption. A minimum of three repetitions were performed between the two faces.
All points have been plotted.

In all instances, the fastest water absorption rates were observed for the CEBs that were not
treated with the water repellent (2R-1). The high variability may be due to the small contact surface
area of the tube. Upon saturation, clay platelets swell and may create a barrier that does not allow
for further absorption. The slowest water absorption was observed for CEBs 2R-5, which were
treated with the water repellent with the highest concentration. An improvement in decreased water
absorption was observed with the application of water repellent; however, it is not a direct
correlation between water absorption and water repellent. This may be caused by clay platelet
swelling at the ingress point.

A clear distinction can be drawn between the faces of the CEB and its impact on absorption
rate; however, it is purely qualitative. As shown in Figure 1, the 177.8 mm by 355.7 mm bottom
face showed a significantly higher absorption rate than compared to that of the narrower (177.8 x
93.8 mm) side, where four of five CEB types reacted the lowest resistance rating on the RILEM
tube within 20 minutes. Therefore, water absorption may be governed by capillary action as
opposed to rain-driven water.

Figure 1: Wind driven rain resistance as determined with the aid of the short RILEM tube, with
placement of the tube on the (a) 177.8 mm by 93.8 mm side face; and, (b) 177.8 mm by 355.7 mm
bottom face.
Effect of common additives on absorption rate: The rate of water absorption, as per ASTM C140
[2], was measured for CEBs with a typical range of cement and lime stabilizer. The results are
shown in Figure 2. Three tests were conducted for each stabilizer ratio. A key observation is that the
water absorption rates are relatively equivalent regardless of the ratio of stabilizer in the CEBs.
Each block absorbs a maximum of approximately 1 kg water. These blocks have an average mass of
12 kg, thus they can absorb approximately 8% of their dry mass. The initial rate of water absorption
is very rapid. Within about 25 minutes, the CEBs can absorb 0.8 kg water (80% of their maximum).
 Figure 2: Water absorption rate for CEBs with varying cement and lime stabilizer.

Effect of moisture on mechanical performance when frozen: Two CEB types were tested to
determine the impact of sub-zero temperatures on compressive strength: CEB 2F-1, containing 5%
cement, and CEB 2F-2, containing 7.5% cement. CEBs used for this study were from the same
batch as those used in another study, and as such, were compared to the room-temperature dry and
wet strengths obtained by Mak et al. [12]. In this instance, the “dry state” occurs when the CEB’s
moisture content is allowed to reach equilibrium at room temperature. It was determined that there
was no significant difference between room temperature dry and oven dry under the specified lab
conditions. The “wet state” occurs when a CEB has been submerged in water for 24 hours, which
exceeds the time required for full saturation. Results from all of these tests are presented in Table 4.

It is well known that the capacity of CEBs diminishes greatly with increasing water content.
This continues to be the case, as shown in Table 4; however, there was a drastic increase in
compressive strength when frozen. At 5% cement content, CEBs demonstrated a strength increase
of 41%. At 7.5% cement content, CEBs demonstrated a strength increase of 24%. Two phenomena
were observed: increase in capacity when frozen, and diminishing strength gain with increasing
cement content. The increase in capacity when frozen may be due to the ice acting as a binder for
the entire system, similar to addition of cement. Furthermore, the impact of the ice as a binder may
be relative to the amount of other binders. With an increase in cement content, there was a decrease
in strength gained due to the ice formation.
 Table 4: Phase 2 Freeze Testing Results, with dry (D) and wet (W) test results from Mak et al. []
denoted by M- (i.e. M-1D), where 1 represents the equivalent additive mixture to 2F-1 and 2
represents the equivalent additive mixture to 2F-2

Results Heathcote and Jankulovski Correction

Std. Aspect
Specimen State Repetitions Strength
Dev. ratio Correction Strength Std. Dev.
[MPa] Factor [MPa] [MPa]
[MPa] [h/t]
2F-1 3 15.01 0.99 1.57 0.67 10.08 0.66
Frozen
2F-2 3 17.56 1.08 1.54 0.67 11.69 0.72
M-1D 3 12.16 0.81 1.02 0.59 7.17 0.48
Dry
M-2D 3 16.1 0.31 1.04 0.59 9.46 0.17
M-1F 3 5.14 0.08 1.02 0.59 3.02 0.04
Wet
M-2F 3 7.65 0.71 1.04 0.59 4.83 0.4

Summary and conclusion

This experimental program invested the impact of alternative stabilizers and water absorption
properties of various conventional CEB types. The study focused on the effect of additives on
compressive strength, the effect of a water sealant on water absorption, the effect of common
additives on absorption rate and the effect of moisture on mechanical properties when frozen. The
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The replacement of cement with metal oxide and permazyme showed no improvement in
compressive strength, whereas the replacement of cement with resin systems showed an
increase in capacity ranging from 52% to 220%.
2. The use of a water sealant was effective for reducing water absorption in CEBs; however,
due to the test method, results were only qualitative. The bottom face of CEBs demonstrated
a faster absorption rate.
3. RILEM testing may only provide a rough estimate of water absorptivity of CEBs. This may
be associated with the clay platelets and the small contact surface associated with the
RILEM tube.
4. All CEBs that were manufactured using conventional stabilizers showed no difference in
absorption properties regardless of stabilization.
5. Although moisture content typically decreases CEB compressive strength, it increases it
when frozen. This may be associated with the ice acting as a binder.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the in-kind support provided by Henry Wiersma.

References

[1] RILEM Test Method II.4, Measurement of Water Absorption under Low Process, Bagneux,
France.
[2] ASTM C 140, Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and
Related Units. West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[3] C.C. Hamilton, To determine the mineralogical and chemical composition of the Clay Fraction
of a hand-grab sample submitted by Mr. H. Wiersma. LR Report: CA01812-FEB05, SGS Lakefield
Research Limited, Lakefield, ON, 2005.
[4] Information on http://www.graymont.com/sites/default/files/pdf/bondcrete_masons_brochure_5-
01.pdf. Accessed July 4, 2015.
[5] Information on http://www.pacificenzymes.com/. Accessed July 4, 2015.
[6] Information on http://www.fyfeco.com/Products/∼/media/Files/Fyfe/2013-Products/
Tyfo%20SEH-51A%20Comp.ashx. Accessed July 4, 2015.
[7] Information on http://www.prosoco.com/products/sure-klean-weather-seal-siloxane-wb-
concentrate. Accessed July 4, 2015.
[8] ASTM C 1314, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[9] ASTM D 559, Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil-Cement
Mixtures. West Conshohocken, PA, 1996.
[10] K. Mak, C. MacDougall and A. Fam: submitted to Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
(2015)
[11] K. Heathcote, E. Jankulovski, Aspect ratio correction factors for soilcrete blocks, Australian
Civil Engineering Transactions. CE34(4) (1992) 309-312.
[12] K. Mak, C. MacDougall and A. Fam: submitted to Journal of Sustainable Building Technology
& Urban Development (2015)